Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 367
High Court Of Calcutta
PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, SOUMITRA SEN
RATAN MALI - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Respondent
F. M. A. 364 Of 2001
Decided On : 06/09/2004
K.K.Das, KRISHANA BANIK
A medical certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured is admissible in evidence in a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the doctor is a qualified doctor and his evidence is not shaken in cross-examination.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 140 - ADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE - CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DOCTOR WHO DID NOT TREAT THE INJURED ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE - SOCIAL LEGISLATION - LIBERAL INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was injured in a bus accident and filed a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the medical certificate showing the claimant's permanent disability was issued by a doctor who had not treated him. The claimant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the medical certificate was admissible in evidence and that the claimant was entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The court relied on a previous decision of a Division Bench of the High Court which had held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation and should be interpreted liberally, and that it is not necessary to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' while dealing with a claim application under the Act.
Issues: Whether the medical certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured is admissible in evidence in a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the medical certificate was admissible in evidence because: * The Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation and should be interpreted liberally. * It is not necessary to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' while dealing with a claim application under the Act. * The doctor who issued the certificate was a qualified doctor and his evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. * The claimant was unable to obtain a medical certificate from the hospital where he was treated because the claim petition was filed long after the expiry of three years from the date of the accident.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
( 1 ) THIS misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24. 1. 2001 passed in M. A. C. Case no. 32 of 1999 by the M. A. C. Tribunal, hooghly. By the said judgment and order, the claimant's application under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') has been dismissed.
( 2 ) THE claimant-appellant was travelling in a private bus bearing registration no. WB 15-2612 on 19. 2. 1996. While the said bus was proceeding along N. H. 5, it suddenly capsized by the side of the road, as a result of which several passengers were seriously injured and some of them had died. The claimant-appellant is one of such passengers who was seriously injured. He filed the above application under section 140 of the said Act for payment of compensation under no fault liability.
( 3 ) AT the trial of the proceeding, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident, has been proved. It has also been proved in evidence that the claimant-appellant suffered injury for which he had to be treated at Uttarpara Hospital for about seven days as an indoor patient. The discharge certificate as issued by the said uttarpara Hospital shows that claimant-appellant has suffered multiple injuries on his body. The claimant-appellant in support of his claim petition has produced a certificate, Exh. 6, issued by a doctor showing his permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent because of the injury suffered by him in the said accident. The claims Tribunal has rejected the above petition only on the ground that the certificate as issued by a doctor is not admissible in evidence, as the said doctor had not treated the claimant-appellant, while he was treated for his injury at the said Uttarpara Hospital.
( 4 ) IN this case, the question accordingly, arises for determination as to whether the said petition under section 140 of the said Act should be dismissed on such ground.
( 5 ) IN dealing with the said question, it may be noticed that a co-passenger of the claimant-appellant who similarly suffered an injury in the said accident filed a similar claim petition under section 140 of the said Act which was dismissed by the claims Tribunal. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and order before this court. The Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated 11. 7. 2003 as passed in the said appeal being F. M. A. No. 361 of 2001 has set aside the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal and allowed the application under section 140 of the said Act by awarding statutory compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000 for the injury suffered by him. In that case also the permanent disablement certificate was issued by the self-same doctor who did not treat the claimant for the injury suffered by him. The Division Bench of this court has considered the several judgments of various other High Courts on this point and upon such consideration has observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation for the benefit of those who are victims of the rash and negligent drivers who play with the dangerous toys in the form of motor vehicles. Such an Act does not demand or deserve rigid technical interpretation. It is not necessary to dot every 'i' and cut every 't' while dealing with a claim application under such Act. Etymological meaning of the word 'impairment' has a very wide canvas and it covers 'weakening'. In this context, it is not possible to reject the evidence of a qualified doctor and the certificate issued by him.
( 6 ) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has referred to a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka high Court reported in Shanta Rathod v. Mahantesh, 2003 ACJ 491 (Karnataka ). In the said decision, it has been merely observed that the Tribunal should be careful in considering the evidence of doctor from out-station who has not treated the injured, but has examined the injured just before evidence
